1. Ramos vs. COL Realty digest.docx

LAMBERT S. RAMOS, - versus C.O.L. REALTY CORPORATION, G.R. No. 184905 August 28, 2009 Ynares-Santiago, J.: FACTS: On or about 10:40 o’clock in the morning of 8 March 2004, along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City, a vehicular accident took place between a Toyota Altis Sedan bearing Plate Number XDN 210 (owned by C.O.L. Realty Corporation and driven by Aquilino Larin) and a Ford Expedition bearing Plate Number LSR 917 (owned by Lambert Ramos and driven by Rodel Ilustrisimo). A passenger of the sedan, one Estela Maliwat sustained injuries, she was immediately rushed to the hospital for treatment. C.O.L. Realty averred that its driver, Aquilino, was slowly driving the Toyota Altis car at a speed of five to ten kilometers per hour along Rajah Matanda Street and has just crossed the center lane of Katipunan Avenue when (Ramos’) Ford Espedition violently rammed against the car’s right rear door and fender. Upon investigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found probable cause to indict Rodel, the driver of the Ford Expedition, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. demanded from respondent reimbursement for the expenses incurred in the repair of its car and the hospitalization ofEstela in the aggregate amount of P103,989.60. The demand fell on deaf ears prompting (C.O.L. Realty) to file a Complaint for Damages based on quasidelict before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila (MeTC), Quezon City. Ramos denied liability for damages insisting that it was the negligence of Aquilino, (C.O.L. Realty’s) driver, which was the proximate cause of the accident. Ramos asserted the sedan car crossed Katipunan Avenue from Rajah Matanda Street despite the concrete barriers placed thereon prohibiting vehicles to pass through the intersection. The MeTC rendered the Decision dated 1 March 2006 exculpating (Ramos) from liability.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ramos is solidarily liable for the negligence of Rodel Ilustrisimo. HELD: YES, What is clear to Us is that Aquilino recklessly ignored these barricades and drove through it. Without doubt, his negligence is established by the fact that he violated a traffic regulation. However, it also declared Ramos liable vicariously for Rodel’s contributory negligence in driving the Ford Expedition at high speed along a busy intersection. We cannot exculpate Rodel from liability. Having thus settled the contributory negligence of Rodel, this created a presumption of negligence on the part of Ramos. For the employer to avoid the solidary liability for a tort committed by his employee, an employer must rebut the presumption by presenting adequate and convincing proof that in the selection and supervision of his employee, he or she exercises the care and diligence of a good father of a family. Ramos’ driver was texting with his cellphone while running at a high speed and that the latter did not slow down albeit he knew that Katipunan Avenue was then undergoing repairs and that the road was barricaded with barriers. As the employer of Rodel, Ramos is solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by the former. ** This finds support in Article 2185 of the Civil Code:

“Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.” Accordingly, there ought to be no question on (C.O.L. Realty’s) negligence which resulted in the vehicular mishap.